Analysis The Mastery of Process and Product Cognitive of Students in Biology Learning Class XI Senior High School in Terms of School Favorability

Isti Farin, Paidi Paidi, Rabiatul Adawiyah


Today, in Indonesia there are still many teachers who reveal the cognitive learning outcomes the students only based  on  the  categorization  cognitive  taxonomy  of  Bloom,  whereas  the  current  curriculum  reuire  to  use  the cognitive taxonomy that has been revised by Anderson & Krathwohl. The aim of this research was to know the mastery  level  of  cognitive  process  and  cognitive  product  of  student  class  XI  in  biology  learning  on  human reproductive system material in senior high school in terms of school favorability. This research was a survey research, that conducted in Padang. The research population was all students class XI in senior high school in Padang,  academic  year  of  2015/2016.  The  sampling  technique.was  using  purposive  sampling.  The  data collection used tests instrument that developed based on dimension of cognitive process and cognitive product of Anderson-Krathwohl. The test instrument used to determine the mastery of cognitive process and cognitive product form of multiple choice test items and essay test items. Data analysis was using descriptive statistic and U  Mann-Whitney  with  significant  level  at  0,05.  The  results  of  this  research  was  obtained  data  showed  that mastery of cognitive process and cognitive product of students in biology learning class XI senior high school between favorite and non favorite school have significant difference with significant level (p) < 0,05. Based on this  research  is  expected  to  educators  and  prospective  educators  have  the  will  and  awareness  to  develop cognitive achievement test based on the dimensions of cognitive process and cognitive  product of Anderson- Krathwohl that mastery of the cognitive dimension of students is clearly known.

Keywords: cognitive process, cognitive product, biology learning, favorability school

Full Text:



Anderson, Lorin W & Krathwohl, David R. (2001). A taxonomy for learnig, teaching, and assessing: a revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objevtives. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Beecher, M & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the acheivement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: one school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19. 3: 502-530.

Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goal, handbook 1 cognitive domain. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.

BNSP. (2006). Standar Isi untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah: Standar Kompetensi dan Kompetensi Dasar SMA.MA.

Çimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students View. Educatioonal Research and Review, 7, 3: 61-71.

Crowe. A, Dirks. C & Wenderoth. (2008). Biology in Bloom: implementing Bloom’s taxonomy to enhance student learning in Biology. CBE: Life Science Education, 7: 368-381.

Dettmer, P. (2006). New blooms in established fields: four domain of learning and doing. Roeper Review, ProQuest Educational Journals, 28, 2: 70-78.

Edi Istiyono, Djemari Mardapi & Suparno. (2014). Pengembangan tes kemampuan berpikir tingkat tinggi fisika (PhysTHOT) peserta didik SMA. Jurnal Penelitian dan Evaluasi Pendidikan, 18, 1: 1-12.

Hosnan. (2014). Pendekatan saintifik dan kontekstual dalam pembelajaran abad 21. Bogor: Ghalia Indonesia.

Macneil, A. J., Prater, D. L & Busch, S. (2009). The effect of school culture and climate on student acheivement. International Journal Leadership in Education, 12, 1: 73-84.

Memon, G. R., Joubish, M. F & Khurram, M. A. (2010). Impact of parental socio-economic status on students’ educational acheivement at secondary school of distric Malir, Karachi. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 6, 6: 678-687.

Nanang Fattah. (2013). Sistem penjaminan mutu sekolah. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya. Nitko, A. J & Brookhart, S. M. (2011). Educational assessment of student (6th ed). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Nuryani Rustaman. (2005). Strategi belajar mengajar biologi. Malang: UM Press

Pickard, M. J. (2007). The new Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview for familiy and consumer science. Journal of Family and Consumer Science Education, 25, 1: 45-55.

Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The Role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching and assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41, 4: 219-225.

Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: the absence of assessment foor learning. Phi Delta Kappan Journal, 83, 10: 758-65.

Teguh Triwiyanto & Ahmad Yusuf Sobri. (2010). Panduan mengelola sekolah bertaraf internasional. Yogyakarta: Ar-Ruzz Media.

Zohar, A & Dori, Y. J. (2003). Higher order thinking skills and low-achieving students: are they mutually exclusive?. The Journal Of The Learning Sciences, 12(2), 145–181.

Zohar, A. (2006). The nature and development of teachers’ metastrategic knowledge in the context of teaching higher order thinking. The Journal of the Learning Science, 15, 3: 331-377.


  • There are currently no refbacks.